Like Humans, The Technique Is Not Infallible: Simon Taufel > Cricket News, cricinfo, mobilecric, cricbuzz, livescore and more

Cricket news - Like people, technology is also fallible: Simon Taufel

"It may have been more helpful for the game itself to drive what technology is used, rather than the broadcasters doing it."

To won known to 96.5 percent of its decisions right meet at the peak of his career, Australian Simon Taufel award for five consecutive years, the ICC umpire of the year. Taufel, who was in the city last week, spoke at last to TOI about the challenges facing the referee with more and more technology in the coming.

excerpts from an interview...

support the use of technology?

Technology to support improved decision-making, not replace decision-making responsibilities and the role of the referee. It is a balance of technology in the game, where we don't see an overreliance on technology, and you remove the human element, because that's exactly how the people, the technology is also fallible, sometimes.

you Do agree that cricket has already been embracing too much technology?

It is helpful to rich for the game itself, what technology is used, rather than the broadcasters do it. The technology we see on TV paid for by the host Broadcaster, which also have total control over it. In the ideal case, the ICC is invested could make in the development of technologies for the game-specific needs. We also need to acknowledge the fact that we can achieve 100 percent accuracy.

What are the areas in which technology can help reduce errors?

The two most difficult appeals to judge the accuracy of the prisoner-behind down the leg-side and the batpad offers. Leg-before decisions are easier to assess, because of the referee, the best-placed person in the whole stadium, in order to assess whether the blow is man " out " or not. Sometimes technology does not provide conclusive evidence, if the blow is man a long way down the pitch.

Just about everything, is what is meant now, the third referee...

It is a disturbing trend. A part of the referee role, the use of technology, use it responsibly and only when you need to. Overuse or under-exposure is not correct. We should make the promotion and support of arbitrators, decisions on where you are.

Has the ball in the grass between a fielder's touching of fingers is a "clean" start?

The laws talk about the ball held by any fielder before it touches the ground. They remain the same. But all of the cricket series between two Nations is governed by the "conditions of play". The referees have to go. So, if the fielder has his fingers under the ball and has it under control, the referee, the blow, man. This explains, Virat Kohli's dismissal in the Perth Test.

Why is it mandatory for on the field, the referees, their decision through a "soft" signal - you are not sure of, anyway - the third referee?

The soft the signal is required, because in some cases, the evidence produced by the camera angle is not conclusive or available. Unless, that is, the third arbitrator shall be conclusive evidence available, it is not right to overturn the decision of the on-field umpire. The primary responsibility for the first decision on a fair catch with the bowler ' s end umpire - just like a LBW decision.

How we can prevent that time-wasting?

I would support the introduction of specialist third umpires. We know that when you do a certain task or role, you will be better, faster. The improvement of the quality and performance of a smaller group of less than 10 is much more accessible, as a group of around 50. Specialist third arbitrator would be the game faster than it is more time-efficient in the assessment and decision-making.

man's fate is often decided by the 'umpire's call' LBW is responsive, so it is not fair on the field, the referee, stick to your original decisions, even if they were sure about it in the first place?

That is an assumption. An LBW decision is based on the opinion of the referee that the ball was going to hit wicket. The decide for you to, on the basis of the facts. From my personal experience, it always pays to back your first impression, follow your gut feeling, even if they meet only a fraction of a second, your decision. At the start of the second guess self, errors can occur.

Why have stopped on the field, the referee, no monitoring-balls?

Again, that is an assumption. I am confident that the judges in excess of the monitoring of the front foot, the bowler, and call, if you want to see. The current playback conditions have created an environment where there is a higher percentage call to go to a narrow foot-landing, and not call it a no-ball, and then when a wicket falls, to go to the top and have it checked.

Is not the ball-tracking technology still a Problem? The 2.5 m rule (point of impact) seems absurd...

I'm not sure it is helpful, if there is a broadcast image of a ball predictive way, was not accurate enough to make decisions. What's the point? There is only uncertainty and the discussion it creates.

What are the changes you want to to to to umpiring in cricket more effectively and efficiently?

I would like to see continued and improved efforts of the management bodies you invest in the resources-training and coaching of match officials. The playing side of the game receives so much support and investment. To see it would be worth the 'third team' in the game has a similar orientation.

Live Home Series
Player Schedule
Points Table Cricket Rankings
Cricket Clothing Cricket Equipment
Cricinfo Apps Download